PURLs

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old primigravida at 10 weeks’ gestation presents for an initial prenatal visit. Medical history includes hypertension that is currently well controlled on labetalol 200 mg twice daily. The patient’s blood pressure (BP) at today’s visit is 125/80 mm Hg. Should labetalol be discontinued?

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy is hypertension that predates the pregnancy or with onset prior to 20 weeks’ gestation. Diagnostic criteria include systolic BP > 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, use of antihypertensive medications prior to pregnancy, or pregnancy-related hypertension persisting > 12 weeks postpartum.^2,3 Chronic hypertension affects 0.9% to 5% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for complications, such as superimposed preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant, preterm birth, cesarean delivery, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.⁴ Superimposed preeclampsia occurs in about 17% to 25% of pregnancies affected by chronic hypertension, compared with 3% to 5% of the general population.³

Historically, a higher treatment threshold of 160/110 mm Hg was preferred to avoid theoretical complications of low placental perfusion.² Practically, this often meant discontinuing antihypertensives at the onset of prenatal care if BP was well controlled. A few small trials previously demonstrated that tight BP goals reduced the risk for severe hypertension, but they did not show an improvement in pregnancy outcomes.^5-7 This larger RCT evaluated whether treatment of mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy at lower BP thresholds is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without negative impact on fetal growth.

STUDY SUMMARY

Active BP treatment yielded better pregnancy outcomes

In a US multicenter, open-label RCT, 2419 pregnant patients with chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at gestational age < 23 weeks were randomized to receive either active pharmacologic treatment with a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or standard treatment, in which BP medication was withheld unless BP reached 160/105 mm Hg (severe hypertension). If medication was initiated in the standard-treatment group, the goal was also 140/90 mm Hg. Exclusion criteria included severe hypertension or suspected intrauterine growth restriction at randomization, known secondary hypertension, certain high-risk comorbidities (eg, cardiac or renal disease), or a major fetal anomaly.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal– Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.

First-line medications were labetalol or extended-release nifedipine in the majority of patients in the active-treatment group and in standard-treatment patients who developed severe hypertension. Patients were followed until 6 weeks after delivery. Intention­-to-treat analyses were performed. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death before 28 days of life, superimposed preeclampsia with severe features up to 2 weeks postpartum, placental abruption leading to delivery, and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks’ gestation. Safety outcomes included birthweight < 10th and < 5th percentile for gestational age.

Primary outcome events occurred in 30.2% of the active-treatment group compared with 37% of the standard-treatment group (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15). Preeclampsia with severe features (23.3% vs 29.1%; aRR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92) and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks (12.2% vs 16.7%; aRR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.6-0.89) occurred less often in the active-treatment group compared with the standard-treatment group. There were no differences in rates of placental abruption, fetal or neonatal death, or small-for-gestational-age infants.

WHAT’S NEW

Target BP of < 140/90 mm Hg reduced risk

This trial provides high-quality evidence that initiating or maintaining treatment at a nonsevere BP threshold (< 140/90 mm Hg) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension reduces maternal and neonatal risk without increasing the risk for small-for-­gestational-age infants. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.^8,9

Continue to: CAVEATS

Patient characteristics and medication choices were limited

This trial does not identify a BP goal for patients who are at highest risk for complications of hypertension or who already have been given a diagnosis of a growth-restricted fetus, as those patients were excluded.

Most patients in the trial who required medications received labetalol or extended-­release nifedipine. It is unclear if other medications would produce similar outcomes.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited challenges anticipated

There should be limited challenges to implementation.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old primigravida at 10 weeks’ gestation presents for an initial prenatal visit. Medical history includes hypertension that is currently well controlled on labetalol 200 mg twice daily. The patient’s blood pressure (BP) at today’s visit is 125/80 mm Hg. Should labetalol be discontinued?

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy is hypertension that predates the pregnancy or with onset prior to 20 weeks’ gestation. Diagnostic criteria include systolic BP > 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, use of antihypertensive medications prior to pregnancy, or pregnancy-related hypertension persisting > 12 weeks postpartum.^2,3 Chronic hypertension affects 0.9% to 5% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for complications, such as superimposed preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant, preterm birth, cesarean delivery, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.⁴ Superimposed preeclampsia occurs in about 17% to 25% of pregnancies affected by chronic hypertension, compared with 3% to 5% of the general population.³

Historically, a higher treatment threshold of 160/110 mm Hg was preferred to avoid theoretical complications of low placental perfusion.² Practically, this often meant discontinuing antihypertensives at the onset of prenatal care if BP was well controlled. A few small trials previously demonstrated that tight BP goals reduced the risk for severe hypertension, but they did not show an improvement in pregnancy outcomes.^5-7 This larger RCT evaluated whether treatment of mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy at lower BP thresholds is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without negative impact on fetal growth.

STUDY SUMMARY

Active BP treatment yielded better pregnancy outcomes

In a US multicenter, open-label RCT, 2419 pregnant patients with chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at gestational age < 23 weeks were randomized to receive either active pharmacologic treatment with a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or standard treatment, in which BP medication was withheld unless BP reached 160/105 mm Hg (severe hypertension). If medication was initiated in the standard-treatment group, the goal was also 140/90 mm Hg. Exclusion criteria included severe hypertension or suspected intrauterine growth restriction at randomization, known secondary hypertension, certain high-risk comorbidities (eg, cardiac or renal disease), or a major fetal anomaly.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal– Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.

First-line medications were labetalol or extended-release nifedipine in the majority of patients in the active-treatment group and in standard-treatment patients who developed severe hypertension. Patients were followed until 6 weeks after delivery. Intention­-to-treat analyses were performed. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death before 28 days of life, superimposed preeclampsia with severe features up to 2 weeks postpartum, placental abruption leading to delivery, and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks’ gestation. Safety outcomes included birthweight < 10th and < 5th percentile for gestational age.

Primary outcome events occurred in 30.2% of the active-treatment group compared with 37% of the standard-treatment group (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15). Preeclampsia with severe features (23.3% vs 29.1%; aRR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92) and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks (12.2% vs 16.7%; aRR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.6-0.89) occurred less often in the active-treatment group compared with the standard-treatment group. There were no differences in rates of placental abruption, fetal or neonatal death, or small-for-gestational-age infants.

WHAT’S NEW

Target BP of < 140/90 mm Hg reduced risk

This trial provides high-quality evidence that initiating or maintaining treatment at a nonsevere BP threshold (< 140/90 mm Hg) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension reduces maternal and neonatal risk without increasing the risk for small-for-­gestational-age infants. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.^8,9

Continue to: CAVEATS

Patient characteristics and medication choices were limited

This trial does not identify a BP goal for patients who are at highest risk for complications of hypertension or who already have been given a diagnosis of a growth-restricted fetus, as those patients were excluded.

Most patients in the trial who required medications received labetalol or extended-­release nifedipine. It is unclear if other medications would produce similar outcomes.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited challenges anticipated

There should be limited challenges to implementation.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old primigravida at 10 weeks’ gestation presents for an initial prenatal visit. Medical history includes hypertension that is currently well controlled on labetalol 200 mg twice daily. The patient’s blood pressure (BP) at today’s visit is 125/80 mm Hg. Should labetalol be discontinued?

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy is hypertension that predates the pregnancy or with onset prior to 20 weeks’ gestation. Diagnostic criteria include systolic BP > 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, use of antihypertensive medications prior to pregnancy, or pregnancy-related hypertension persisting > 12 weeks postpartum.^2,3 Chronic hypertension affects 0.9% to 5% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for complications, such as superimposed preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant, preterm birth, cesarean delivery, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.⁴ Superimposed preeclampsia occurs in about 17% to 25% of pregnancies affected by chronic hypertension, compared with 3% to 5% of the general population.³

Historically, a higher treatment threshold of 160/110 mm Hg was preferred to avoid theoretical complications of low placental perfusion.² Practically, this often meant discontinuing antihypertensives at the onset of prenatal care if BP was well controlled. A few small trials previously demonstrated that tight BP goals reduced the risk for severe hypertension, but they did not show an improvement in pregnancy outcomes.^5-7 This larger RCT evaluated whether treatment of mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy at lower BP thresholds is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without negative impact on fetal growth.

STUDY SUMMARY

Active BP treatment yielded better pregnancy outcomes

In a US multicenter, open-label RCT, 2419 pregnant patients with chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at gestational age < 23 weeks were randomized to receive either active pharmacologic treatment with a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or standard treatment, in which BP medication was withheld unless BP reached 160/105 mm Hg (severe hypertension). If medication was initiated in the standard-treatment group, the goal was also 140/90 mm Hg. Exclusion criteria included severe hypertension or suspected intrauterine growth restriction at randomization, known secondary hypertension, certain high-risk comorbidities (eg, cardiac or renal disease), or a major fetal anomaly.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal– Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.

First-line medications were labetalol or extended-release nifedipine in the majority of patients in the active-treatment group and in standard-treatment patients who developed severe hypertension. Patients were followed until 6 weeks after delivery. Intention­-to-treat analyses were performed. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death before 28 days of life, superimposed preeclampsia with severe features up to 2 weeks postpartum, placental abruption leading to delivery, and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks’ gestation. Safety outcomes included birthweight < 10th and < 5th percentile for gestational age.

Primary outcome events occurred in 30.2% of the active-treatment group compared with 37% of the standard-treatment group (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15). Preeclampsia with severe features (23.3% vs 29.1%; aRR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92) and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks (12.2% vs 16.7%; aRR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.6-0.89) occurred less often in the active-treatment group compared with the standard-treatment group. There were no differences in rates of placental abruption, fetal or neonatal death, or small-for-gestational-age infants.

WHAT’S NEW

Target BP of < 140/90 mm Hg reduced risk

This trial provides high-quality evidence that initiating or maintaining treatment at a nonsevere BP threshold (< 140/90 mm Hg) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension reduces maternal and neonatal risk without increasing the risk for small-for-­gestational-age infants. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.^8,9

Continue to: CAVEATS

Patient characteristics and medication choices were limited

This trial does not identify a BP goal for patients who are at highest risk for complications of hypertension or who already have been given a diagnosis of a growth-restricted fetus, as those patients were excluded.

Most patients in the trial who required medications received labetalol or extended-­release nifedipine. It is unclear if other medications would produce similar outcomes.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited challenges anticipated

There should be limited challenges to implementation.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A healthy 33-year-old woman presents to your office with a 3-month history of depressed mood. She reports difficulty concentrating, insomnia, decreased appetite, and generalized fatigue. She denies suicidal or homicidal ideation, substance misuse, or history consistent with manic episodes. Her vital signs are normal and overall her physical examination is unremarkable, although the patient is tearful when discussing her mood. Using shared decision-making, you and the patient determine it is appropriate to initiate pharmacotherapy. Is there a role for combination pharmacotherapy to treat this patient’s acute depression?

Unipolar depression is a highly prevalent condition, estimated to affect 21% of US adults at some point in their lifetime.² It is the second leading cause of disability in the United States, with an ­estimated economic impact of more than $200 billion annually.³

The diagnosis of unipolar depression is based on the criteria set forth in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and commonly includes depressed mood, anhedonia, sleep disturbance, appetite changes, fatigue, feelings of worthlessness or guilt, decreased ability to concentrate, and psychomotor symptoms occurring over at least a 2-week period.⁴ Symptoms represent a decrease in functioning from previous levels that are not attributable to another medical condition or substance, and must not include a history of past manic or hypomanic episodes. Thoughts of death and suicidal ideation are common.

Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that a combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy is more efficacious for treatment of unipolar depression than either therapy alone.^5-7 As for which medication is most effective and tolerable, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have not demonstrated superiority of 1 second-generation antidepressant (eg, SSRIs, SNRIs) over another.^7,8

General practice guidelines support titration of the dose or a switch in monotherapy medications until treatment response is achieved, prior to initiation of a second agent. When an adjunctive medication is considered, there are several options: a ­second-generation antipsychotic, a second antidepressant from a different class, thyroid hormone, and lithium. Special consideration is given to the adverse effect profile and potential tolerability; higher adverse effect profiles are observed with second-generation antipsychotics and lithium.⁹

This study suggests that combination pharmacotherapy is superior to monotherapy, both at the time of treatment initiation and in patients with previous inadequate pharmacologic response.

It is not common practice to initiate 2 antidepressants for a new diagnosis of acute depression. The systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Henssler et al¹ attempted to provide evidence to support the efficacy and tolerability of specific antidepressants when used in combination for initial treatment of acute depression. Of note, a 2008 national survey showed that a majority of psychotropic medications in the United States are prescribed by primary care physicians (73.6%) rather than psychiatrists, making this analysis relevant to family physicians.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Combination pharmacotherapy yields superior efficacy in acute depression

This 2022 systematic review and meta-­analysis (39 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]; N = 6751) compared the efficacy and tolerability of monotherapy to combination therapy in the treatment of patients with acute depression.¹ The study also aimed to address which specific combination therapies were superior.

Continue to: Selected RCTs included...

Selected RCTs included an intervention group using a combination of 2 antidepressants, regardless of dosage, and a control group of patients taking antidepressant monotherapy. Studies evaluated both patients being treated for the first time and those with a previously inadequate response to medical treatment. All participants were ages 18 years or older (mean age not reported) and had received a diagnosis of depressive disorder according to standard operationalized criteria; patients with multiple psychiatric comorbidities were not excluded.

Studies used various standardized questionnaires—most frequently, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)—to determine the severity of depression at baseline and following treatment. The HDRS is a 17-item depression scale and the MADRS is a 10-item depression scale; for both, higher scores indicate worsening depression. Follow-up time ranged from 2 to 12 weeks.

The primary outcome was treatment efficacy measured as the standardized mean difference (SMD). Secondary outcomes included remission (normal-range scores) and response to treatment (eg, ≥ 50% reduction in scores), as defined by the study authors.

Combination therapy was determined to have superior efficacy relative to monotherapy (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.44; P < .001). Combinations with a presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonist (eg, mirtazapine, trazodone, or mianserin [the last of which is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States]) and a monoamine reuptake inhibitor (eg, an SSRI, SNRI, or TCA) were superior to other combinations (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). Combinations that included bupropion were not superior to monotherapy (SMD = 0.10; 95% CI, –0.07 to 0.27).

Secondary outcomes revealed combination therapy to be superior to monotherapy with respect to remission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.20-1.92) and response (OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.15-1.69). Subgroup analyses showed that combinations with presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonists led to improved remission (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.01) and response (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18-1.87) compared with monotherapy, whereas combinations that included bupropion were not superior to monotherapy. For patients who dropped out of treatment for any reason, including adverse drug events, results for combination pharmacotherapy and monotherapy were similar.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

One combination proved more effective than others

Current clinical guidelines indicate the suitability of trialing pharmacologic monotherapy during the acute phase of depression treatment prior to initiating an adjunctive medication.⁹ All classes of medication investigated in this meta-analysis are generally regarded as first-line therapies, although they are rarely started in combination. This study’s findings suggest that combination pharmacotherapy, especially with a presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonist (eg, mirtazapine, trazodone) and a monoamine reuptake inhibitor (eg, an SSRI, SNRI, or a TCA), is superior to monotherapy, both at the time of treatment initiation and in patients with previous inadequate pharmacologic response.

CAVEATS

Potential limitations due to publication bias

Concerns about publication bias and significant study heterogeneity may limit the generalizability of these findings. However, conclusions were robust in a subgroup analysis that was restricted to publications with low risk for bias.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to report

There are no major challenges to implementing this combination treatment. Importantly, there were no differences in tolerability between monotherapy and combination treatment. 

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A healthy 33-year-old woman presents to your office with a 3-month history of depressed mood. She reports difficulty concentrating, insomnia, decreased appetite, and generalized fatigue. She denies suicidal or homicidal ideation, substance misuse, or history consistent with manic episodes. Her vital signs are normal and overall her physical examination is unremarkable, although the patient is tearful when discussing her mood. Using shared decision-making, you and the patient determine it is appropriate to initiate pharmacotherapy. Is there a role for combination pharmacotherapy to treat this patient’s acute depression?

Unipolar depression is a highly prevalent condition, estimated to affect 21% of US adults at some point in their lifetime.² It is the second leading cause of disability in the United States, with an ­estimated economic impact of more than $200 billion annually.³

The diagnosis of unipolar depression is based on the criteria set forth in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and commonly includes depressed mood, anhedonia, sleep disturbance, appetite changes, fatigue, feelings of worthlessness or guilt, decreased ability to concentrate, and psychomotor symptoms occurring over at least a 2-week period.⁴ Symptoms represent a decrease in functioning from previous levels that are not attributable to another medical condition or substance, and must not include a history of past manic or hypomanic episodes. Thoughts of death and suicidal ideation are common.

Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that a combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy is more efficacious for treatment of unipolar depression than either therapy alone.^5-7 As for which medication is most effective and tolerable, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have not demonstrated superiority of 1 second-generation antidepressant (eg, SSRIs, SNRIs) over another.^7,8

General practice guidelines support titration of the dose or a switch in monotherapy medications until treatment response is achieved, prior to initiation of a second agent. When an adjunctive medication is considered, there are several options: a ­second-generation antipsychotic, a second antidepressant from a different class, thyroid hormone, and lithium. Special consideration is given to the adverse effect profile and potential tolerability; higher adverse effect profiles are observed with second-generation antipsychotics and lithium.⁹

This study suggests that combination pharmacotherapy is superior to monotherapy, both at the time of treatment initiation and in patients with previous inadequate pharmacologic response.

It is not common practice to initiate 2 antidepressants for a new diagnosis of acute depression. The systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Henssler et al¹ attempted to provide evidence to support the efficacy and tolerability of specific antidepressants when used in combination for initial treatment of acute depression. Of note, a 2008 national survey showed that a majority of psychotropic medications in the United States are prescribed by primary care physicians (73.6%) rather than psychiatrists, making this analysis relevant to family physicians.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Combination pharmacotherapy yields superior efficacy in acute depression

This 2022 systematic review and meta-­analysis (39 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]; N = 6751) compared the efficacy and tolerability of monotherapy to combination therapy in the treatment of patients with acute depression.¹ The study also aimed to address which specific combination therapies were superior.

Continue to: Selected RCTs included...

Selected RCTs included an intervention group using a combination of 2 antidepressants, regardless of dosage, and a control group of patients taking antidepressant monotherapy. Studies evaluated both patients being treated for the first time and those with a previously inadequate response to medical treatment. All participants were ages 18 years or older (mean age not reported) and had received a diagnosis of depressive disorder according to standard operationalized criteria; patients with multiple psychiatric comorbidities were not excluded.

Studies used various standardized questionnaires—most frequently, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)—to determine the severity of depression at baseline and following treatment. The HDRS is a 17-item depression scale and the MADRS is a 10-item depression scale; for both, higher scores indicate worsening depression. Follow-up time ranged from 2 to 12 weeks.

The primary outcome was treatment efficacy measured as the standardized mean difference (SMD). Secondary outcomes included remission (normal-range scores) and response to treatment (eg, ≥ 50% reduction in scores), as defined by the study authors.

Combination therapy was determined to have superior efficacy relative to monotherapy (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.44; P < .001). Combinations with a presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonist (eg, mirtazapine, trazodone, or mianserin [the last of which is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States]) and a monoamine reuptake inhibitor (eg, an SSRI, SNRI, or TCA) were superior to other combinations (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). Combinations that included bupropion were not superior to monotherapy (SMD = 0.10; 95% CI, –0.07 to 0.27).

Secondary outcomes revealed combination therapy to be superior to monotherapy with respect to remission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.20-1.92) and response (OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.15-1.69). Subgroup analyses showed that combinations with presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonists led to improved remission (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.01) and response (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18-1.87) compared with monotherapy, whereas combinations that included bupropion were not superior to monotherapy. For patients who dropped out of treatment for any reason, including adverse drug events, results for combination pharmacotherapy and monotherapy were similar.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

One combination proved more effective than others

Current clinical guidelines indicate the suitability of trialing pharmacologic monotherapy during the acute phase of depression treatment prior to initiating an adjunctive medication.⁹ All classes of medication investigated in this meta-analysis are generally regarded as first-line therapies, although they are rarely started in combination. This study’s findings suggest that combination pharmacotherapy, especially with a presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonist (eg, mirtazapine, trazodone) and a monoamine reuptake inhibitor (eg, an SSRI, SNRI, or a TCA), is superior to monotherapy, both at the time of treatment initiation and in patients with previous inadequate pharmacologic response.

CAVEATS

Potential limitations due to publication bias

Concerns about publication bias and significant study heterogeneity may limit the generalizability of these findings. However, conclusions were robust in a subgroup analysis that was restricted to publications with low risk for bias.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to report

There are no major challenges to implementing this combination treatment. Importantly, there were no differences in tolerability between monotherapy and combination treatment. 

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A healthy 33-year-old woman presents to your office with a 3-month history of depressed mood. She reports difficulty concentrating, insomnia, decreased appetite, and generalized fatigue. She denies suicidal or homicidal ideation, substance misuse, or history consistent with manic episodes. Her vital signs are normal and overall her physical examination is unremarkable, although the patient is tearful when discussing her mood. Using shared decision-making, you and the patient determine it is appropriate to initiate pharmacotherapy. Is there a role for combination pharmacotherapy to treat this patient’s acute depression?

Unipolar depression is a highly prevalent condition, estimated to affect 21% of US adults at some point in their lifetime.² It is the second leading cause of disability in the United States, with an ­estimated economic impact of more than $200 billion annually.³

The diagnosis of unipolar depression is based on the criteria set forth in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and commonly includes depressed mood, anhedonia, sleep disturbance, appetite changes, fatigue, feelings of worthlessness or guilt, decreased ability to concentrate, and psychomotor symptoms occurring over at least a 2-week period.⁴ Symptoms represent a decrease in functioning from previous levels that are not attributable to another medical condition or substance, and must not include a history of past manic or hypomanic episodes. Thoughts of death and suicidal ideation are common.

Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that a combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy is more efficacious for treatment of unipolar depression than either therapy alone.^5-7 As for which medication is most effective and tolerable, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have not demonstrated superiority of 1 second-generation antidepressant (eg, SSRIs, SNRIs) over another.^7,8

General practice guidelines support titration of the dose or a switch in monotherapy medications until treatment response is achieved, prior to initiation of a second agent. When an adjunctive medication is considered, there are several options: a ­second-generation antipsychotic, a second antidepressant from a different class, thyroid hormone, and lithium. Special consideration is given to the adverse effect profile and potential tolerability; higher adverse effect profiles are observed with second-generation antipsychotics and lithium.⁹

This study suggests that combination pharmacotherapy is superior to monotherapy, both at the time of treatment initiation and in patients with previous inadequate pharmacologic response.

It is not common practice to initiate 2 antidepressants for a new diagnosis of acute depression. The systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Henssler et al¹ attempted to provide evidence to support the efficacy and tolerability of specific antidepressants when used in combination for initial treatment of acute depression. Of note, a 2008 national survey showed that a majority of psychotropic medications in the United States are prescribed by primary care physicians (73.6%) rather than psychiatrists, making this analysis relevant to family physicians.¹⁰

STUDY SUMMARY

Combination pharmacotherapy yields superior efficacy in acute depression

This 2022 systematic review and meta-­analysis (39 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]; N = 6751) compared the efficacy and tolerability of monotherapy to combination therapy in the treatment of patients with acute depression.¹ The study also aimed to address which specific combination therapies were superior.

Continue to: Selected RCTs included...

Selected RCTs included an intervention group using a combination of 2 antidepressants, regardless of dosage, and a control group of patients taking antidepressant monotherapy. Studies evaluated both patients being treated for the first time and those with a previously inadequate response to medical treatment. All participants were ages 18 years or older (mean age not reported) and had received a diagnosis of depressive disorder according to standard operationalized criteria; patients with multiple psychiatric comorbidities were not excluded.

Studies used various standardized questionnaires—most frequently, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)—to determine the severity of depression at baseline and following treatment. The HDRS is a 17-item depression scale and the MADRS is a 10-item depression scale; for both, higher scores indicate worsening depression. Follow-up time ranged from 2 to 12 weeks.

The primary outcome was treatment efficacy measured as the standardized mean difference (SMD). Secondary outcomes included remission (normal-range scores) and response to treatment (eg, ≥ 50% reduction in scores), as defined by the study authors.

Combination therapy was determined to have superior efficacy relative to monotherapy (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.44; P < .001). Combinations with a presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonist (eg, mirtazapine, trazodone, or mianserin [the last of which is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States]) and a monoamine reuptake inhibitor (eg, an SSRI, SNRI, or TCA) were superior to other combinations (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). Combinations that included bupropion were not superior to monotherapy (SMD = 0.10; 95% CI, –0.07 to 0.27).

Secondary outcomes revealed combination therapy to be superior to monotherapy with respect to remission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.20-1.92) and response (OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.15-1.69). Subgroup analyses showed that combinations with presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonists led to improved remission (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.01) and response (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18-1.87) compared with monotherapy, whereas combinations that included bupropion were not superior to monotherapy. For patients who dropped out of treatment for any reason, including adverse drug events, results for combination pharmacotherapy and monotherapy were similar.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

One combination proved more effective than others

Current clinical guidelines indicate the suitability of trialing pharmacologic monotherapy during the acute phase of depression treatment prior to initiating an adjunctive medication.⁹ All classes of medication investigated in this meta-analysis are generally regarded as first-line therapies, although they are rarely started in combination. This study’s findings suggest that combination pharmacotherapy, especially with a presynaptic α2-autoreceptor antagonist (eg, mirtazapine, trazodone) and a monoamine reuptake inhibitor (eg, an SSRI, SNRI, or a TCA), is superior to monotherapy, both at the time of treatment initiation and in patients with previous inadequate pharmacologic response.

CAVEATS

Potential limitations due to publication bias

Concerns about publication bias and significant study heterogeneity may limit the generalizability of these findings. However, conclusions were robust in a subgroup analysis that was restricted to publications with low risk for bias.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to report

There are no major challenges to implementing this combination treatment. Importantly, there were no differences in tolerability between monotherapy and combination treatment. 

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old woman with a history of migraine with aura presents to your office for contraception management. She works full-time, has 2 children, and has transportation barriers. She previously used injectable DMPA (administered every 3 months at a health care facility) and would like to restart it. However, because she had to reschedule her last appointment due to a lack of transportation, she missed her injection window and subsequently became pregnant with her second child. She would still prefer injectable DMPA over the other contraceptive options ­offered—etonogestrel implant, oral contraceptive, or intrauterine device (IUD)—given her migraine history. However, she’s concerned she may have difficulty coming to the office every 3 months for her injection. What alternative injectable option can you offer?

When not pregnant or seeking to become pregnant, women may spend a significant amount of their lives trying to avoid pregnancy, and almost all women use contraception at some point.² During the childbearing years of 15 to 49, 65% of women report using contraception.² Although DMPA is a safe and effective option, only 2% of women report using it for contraception.²

For patients who have migraine with aura, there are fewer contraception options because their risk for ischemic stroke is increased 2- to 4-fold if they use combined hormonal contraceptives in pill, patch, or vaginal ring form.³ Safe options for these patients include the copper IUD, levonorgestrel­-releasing intrauterine system, progestin implant, and DMPA injection.³

DMPA is a progestogen-only contraceptive approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to prevent pregnancy. It is available in an intramuscular formulation (DMPA-IM; 150 mg/mL every 13 weeks) and a subcutaneous formulation (DMPA-SC; 104 mg/0.65 mL every 12-14 weeks). DMPA-IM is administered by a health care provider and thus requires patients to present every 3 months for an injection. About 6% of ­DMPA-IM users have an unintended pregnancy in the first year due to inconsistent or incorrect use or late receipt of injection.⁴ DMPA-SC is produced as a prefilled needle that can be self-injected by patients.

Barriers to access are a growing concern. During the COVID-19 pandemic, one-third of women surveyed by the Guttmacher Institute (n = 2009) reported delaying or canceling a health care visit or having difficulty obtaining their contraception. Barriers to health care and contraception access were more common among Black and Hispanic women (vs White women), queer women (vs straight women), and low-income women (vs higher-income women).⁵

Following the overturning of Roe v Wade in June 2022, abortion access is now limited in parts of the United States. Given this significant policy change, physicians have an increasingly important role in providing contraception care and reducing barriers to contraception access. Since the SC forms of injectable contraception can be administered at home rather than in the health care setting, both the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that self-administered injectable contraception be made widely available to expand access to contraception.^6,7

STUDY SUMMARY

Higher contraceptive continuation rates with comparable safety and efficacy

This 2019 systematic review and meta-­analysis evaluated the outcomes associated with use of self-administered DMPA-SC vs provider-administered DMPA in 5 countries.¹ The authors searched several electronic databases for peer-reviewed studies of women who chose the option to self-administer DMPA-SC vs those who received DMPA injections from a health care provider.

Continue to: Outcomes included pregnancy

Outcomes included pregnancy; adverse effects or events (bleeding, injection site reactions, mental health concerns); initial use of injectable contraception (contraception uptake); and continuation rate of injectable contraception. Two reviewers extracted the data and assessed trials for bias. The authors used random-effects models to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) for studies with the same outcomes.

For patients who prefer an injectable contraceptive, a self-administered formulation of DMPA appears to balance access with convenience without an increase in adverse outcomes.

The analysis included a total of 6 trials (N = 3851): 3 RCTs (n = 1263) and 3 controlled cohort studies (n = 2588), conducted in the United States (2 trials), Malawi, Scotland, Uganda, and Senegal. All studies compared 12-month continuation rates of self-injected DMPA-SC vs provider-administered DMPA­-SC or DMPA-IM every 3 months (12-13 weeks, with a window for early and late injections). Participants were at least 15 years of age (mean range, 26 to 29 years). In some studies, reminders (eg, texts, emails, calendar notifications) were provided to either the self-injection cohort only or to both cohorts of the trial. The RCTs were generally graded as having a low risk for bias, except for nonblinding of participants and personnel, given the nature of the interventions. The authors reported no evidence of significant heterogeneity in the studies.

The meta-analysis found higher continuation rates at 12 months with self-­administrated DMPA compared with provider administration in the RCTs (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39) and in the observational cohort studies (RR = 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.26). Pregnancy outcomes were reported in 4 studies, with the meta-analysis finding no significant difference in pregnancy rates in 2 RCTs (RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.15-2.22) or 2 observational cohort studies (RR = 1.1; 95% CI, 0.23-5.26).

Adverse effects or events were reported in 4 studies: 2 cohort studies reported increased injection site reactions with self-administration, and 1 RCT reported increased injection site pain or irritation with self-administration at 3 and 9 months. No other reported adverse effects occurred at higher rates with self-administration vs provider administration.

WHAT’S NEW

Demonstrated effectiveness of self-administered formulation

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that self-administration of DMPA-SC leads to higher contraception continuation rates at 12 months, without notable increased pregnancy rates or adverse effects, when compared with provider-administered DMPA.

Continue to: CAVEATS

Outcome data limited to 12 months

Although self-administered DMPA-SC has the theoretical risk for user error and incorrect administration, this study did not find increased rates of pregnancy despite administration outside a health care center. However, the total number of pregnancies in each of the 4 studies measuring this outcome was low (< 5), and thus the authors noted that the effect size estimates may not be accurate.

Currently, there are no data on long-term outcomes beyond 12 months. Additionally, the health care visits for provider-administered DMPA every 3 months may afford other benefits, such as regular discussion of reproductive health concerns or testing for sexually transmitted infections, which must be weighed against the benefit of increased contraception access with self-administration. However, using the DMPA-SC self-administered formulation at home would not inhibit women from making separate health care visits as needed.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited resources to teach patients how to self-inject

Barriers to implementation include limited experience with prescribing DMPA-SC and changing practice culture to offer it to patients. Additionally, successful implementation of self-administered DMPA-SC is reliant on providing patients with appropriate information and training on self-injection, which requires knowledge, time, and other resources­ that may be limited in practices. Another potential barrier is product access, as not all insurers cover DMPA-SC and some pharmacies do not carry it.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old woman with a history of migraine with aura presents to your office for contraception management. She works full-time, has 2 children, and has transportation barriers. She previously used injectable DMPA (administered every 3 months at a health care facility) and would like to restart it. However, because she had to reschedule her last appointment due to a lack of transportation, she missed her injection window and subsequently became pregnant with her second child. She would still prefer injectable DMPA over the other contraceptive options ­offered—etonogestrel implant, oral contraceptive, or intrauterine device (IUD)—given her migraine history. However, she’s concerned she may have difficulty coming to the office every 3 months for her injection. What alternative injectable option can you offer?

When not pregnant or seeking to become pregnant, women may spend a significant amount of their lives trying to avoid pregnancy, and almost all women use contraception at some point.² During the childbearing years of 15 to 49, 65% of women report using contraception.² Although DMPA is a safe and effective option, only 2% of women report using it for contraception.²

For patients who have migraine with aura, there are fewer contraception options because their risk for ischemic stroke is increased 2- to 4-fold if they use combined hormonal contraceptives in pill, patch, or vaginal ring form.³ Safe options for these patients include the copper IUD, levonorgestrel­-releasing intrauterine system, progestin implant, and DMPA injection.³

DMPA is a progestogen-only contraceptive approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to prevent pregnancy. It is available in an intramuscular formulation (DMPA-IM; 150 mg/mL every 13 weeks) and a subcutaneous formulation (DMPA-SC; 104 mg/0.65 mL every 12-14 weeks). DMPA-IM is administered by a health care provider and thus requires patients to present every 3 months for an injection. About 6% of ­DMPA-IM users have an unintended pregnancy in the first year due to inconsistent or incorrect use or late receipt of injection.⁴ DMPA-SC is produced as a prefilled needle that can be self-injected by patients.

Barriers to access are a growing concern. During the COVID-19 pandemic, one-third of women surveyed by the Guttmacher Institute (n = 2009) reported delaying or canceling a health care visit or having difficulty obtaining their contraception. Barriers to health care and contraception access were more common among Black and Hispanic women (vs White women), queer women (vs straight women), and low-income women (vs higher-income women).⁵

Following the overturning of Roe v Wade in June 2022, abortion access is now limited in parts of the United States. Given this significant policy change, physicians have an increasingly important role in providing contraception care and reducing barriers to contraception access. Since the SC forms of injectable contraception can be administered at home rather than in the health care setting, both the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that self-administered injectable contraception be made widely available to expand access to contraception.^6,7

STUDY SUMMARY

Higher contraceptive continuation rates with comparable safety and efficacy

This 2019 systematic review and meta-­analysis evaluated the outcomes associated with use of self-administered DMPA-SC vs provider-administered DMPA in 5 countries.¹ The authors searched several electronic databases for peer-reviewed studies of women who chose the option to self-administer DMPA-SC vs those who received DMPA injections from a health care provider.

Continue to: Outcomes included pregnancy

Outcomes included pregnancy; adverse effects or events (bleeding, injection site reactions, mental health concerns); initial use of injectable contraception (contraception uptake); and continuation rate of injectable contraception. Two reviewers extracted the data and assessed trials for bias. The authors used random-effects models to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) for studies with the same outcomes.

For patients who prefer an injectable contraceptive, a self-administered formulation of DMPA appears to balance access with convenience without an increase in adverse outcomes.

The analysis included a total of 6 trials (N = 3851): 3 RCTs (n = 1263) and 3 controlled cohort studies (n = 2588), conducted in the United States (2 trials), Malawi, Scotland, Uganda, and Senegal. All studies compared 12-month continuation rates of self-injected DMPA-SC vs provider-administered DMPA­-SC or DMPA-IM every 3 months (12-13 weeks, with a window for early and late injections). Participants were at least 15 years of age (mean range, 26 to 29 years). In some studies, reminders (eg, texts, emails, calendar notifications) were provided to either the self-injection cohort only or to both cohorts of the trial. The RCTs were generally graded as having a low risk for bias, except for nonblinding of participants and personnel, given the nature of the interventions. The authors reported no evidence of significant heterogeneity in the studies.

The meta-analysis found higher continuation rates at 12 months with self-­administrated DMPA compared with provider administration in the RCTs (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39) and in the observational cohort studies (RR = 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.26). Pregnancy outcomes were reported in 4 studies, with the meta-analysis finding no significant difference in pregnancy rates in 2 RCTs (RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.15-2.22) or 2 observational cohort studies (RR = 1.1; 95% CI, 0.23-5.26).

Adverse effects or events were reported in 4 studies: 2 cohort studies reported increased injection site reactions with self-administration, and 1 RCT reported increased injection site pain or irritation with self-administration at 3 and 9 months. No other reported adverse effects occurred at higher rates with self-administration vs provider administration.

WHAT’S NEW

Demonstrated effectiveness of self-administered formulation

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that self-administration of DMPA-SC leads to higher contraception continuation rates at 12 months, without notable increased pregnancy rates or adverse effects, when compared with provider-administered DMPA.

Continue to: CAVEATS

Outcome data limited to 12 months

Although self-administered DMPA-SC has the theoretical risk for user error and incorrect administration, this study did not find increased rates of pregnancy despite administration outside a health care center. However, the total number of pregnancies in each of the 4 studies measuring this outcome was low (< 5), and thus the authors noted that the effect size estimates may not be accurate.

Currently, there are no data on long-term outcomes beyond 12 months. Additionally, the health care visits for provider-administered DMPA every 3 months may afford other benefits, such as regular discussion of reproductive health concerns or testing for sexually transmitted infections, which must be weighed against the benefit of increased contraception access with self-administration. However, using the DMPA-SC self-administered formulation at home would not inhibit women from making separate health care visits as needed.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited resources to teach patients how to self-inject

Barriers to implementation include limited experience with prescribing DMPA-SC and changing practice culture to offer it to patients. Additionally, successful implementation of self-administered DMPA-SC is reliant on providing patients with appropriate information and training on self-injection, which requires knowledge, time, and other resources­ that may be limited in practices. Another potential barrier is product access, as not all insurers cover DMPA-SC and some pharmacies do not carry it.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old woman with a history of migraine with aura presents to your office for contraception management. She works full-time, has 2 children, and has transportation barriers. She previously used injectable DMPA (administered every 3 months at a health care facility) and would like to restart it. However, because she had to reschedule her last appointment due to a lack of transportation, she missed her injection window and subsequently became pregnant with her second child. She would still prefer injectable DMPA over the other contraceptive options ­offered—etonogestrel implant, oral contraceptive, or intrauterine device (IUD)—given her migraine history. However, she’s concerned she may have difficulty coming to the office every 3 months for her injection. What alternative injectable option can you offer?

When not pregnant or seeking to become pregnant, women may spend a significant amount of their lives trying to avoid pregnancy, and almost all women use contraception at some point.² During the childbearing years of 15 to 49, 65% of women report using contraception.² Although DMPA is a safe and effective option, only 2% of women report using it for contraception.²

For patients who have migraine with aura, there are fewer contraception options because their risk for ischemic stroke is increased 2- to 4-fold if they use combined hormonal contraceptives in pill, patch, or vaginal ring form.³ Safe options for these patients include the copper IUD, levonorgestrel­-releasing intrauterine system, progestin implant, and DMPA injection.³

DMPA is a progestogen-only contraceptive approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to prevent pregnancy. It is available in an intramuscular formulation (DMPA-IM; 150 mg/mL every 13 weeks) and a subcutaneous formulation (DMPA-SC; 104 mg/0.65 mL every 12-14 weeks). DMPA-IM is administered by a health care provider and thus requires patients to present every 3 months for an injection. About 6% of ­DMPA-IM users have an unintended pregnancy in the first year due to inconsistent or incorrect use or late receipt of injection.⁴ DMPA-SC is produced as a prefilled needle that can be self-injected by patients.

Barriers to access are a growing concern. During the COVID-19 pandemic, one-third of women surveyed by the Guttmacher Institute (n = 2009) reported delaying or canceling a health care visit or having difficulty obtaining their contraception. Barriers to health care and contraception access were more common among Black and Hispanic women (vs White women), queer women (vs straight women), and low-income women (vs higher-income women).⁵

Following the overturning of Roe v Wade in June 2022, abortion access is now limited in parts of the United States. Given this significant policy change, physicians have an increasingly important role in providing contraception care and reducing barriers to contraception access. Since the SC forms of injectable contraception can be administered at home rather than in the health care setting, both the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that self-administered injectable contraception be made widely available to expand access to contraception.^6,7

STUDY SUMMARY

Higher contraceptive continuation rates with comparable safety and efficacy

This 2019 systematic review and meta-­analysis evaluated the outcomes associated with use of self-administered DMPA-SC vs provider-administered DMPA in 5 countries.¹ The authors searched several electronic databases for peer-reviewed studies of women who chose the option to self-administer DMPA-SC vs those who received DMPA injections from a health care provider.

Continue to: Outcomes included pregnancy

Outcomes included pregnancy; adverse effects or events (bleeding, injection site reactions, mental health concerns); initial use of injectable contraception (contraception uptake); and continuation rate of injectable contraception. Two reviewers extracted the data and assessed trials for bias. The authors used random-effects models to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) for studies with the same outcomes.

For patients who prefer an injectable contraceptive, a self-administered formulation of DMPA appears to balance access with convenience without an increase in adverse outcomes.

The analysis included a total of 6 trials (N = 3851): 3 RCTs (n = 1263) and 3 controlled cohort studies (n = 2588), conducted in the United States (2 trials), Malawi, Scotland, Uganda, and Senegal. All studies compared 12-month continuation rates of self-injected DMPA-SC vs provider-administered DMPA­-SC or DMPA-IM every 3 months (12-13 weeks, with a window for early and late injections). Participants were at least 15 years of age (mean range, 26 to 29 years). In some studies, reminders (eg, texts, emails, calendar notifications) were provided to either the self-injection cohort only or to both cohorts of the trial. The RCTs were generally graded as having a low risk for bias, except for nonblinding of participants and personnel, given the nature of the interventions. The authors reported no evidence of significant heterogeneity in the studies.

The meta-analysis found higher continuation rates at 12 months with self-­administrated DMPA compared with provider administration in the RCTs (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39) and in the observational cohort studies (RR = 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.26). Pregnancy outcomes were reported in 4 studies, with the meta-analysis finding no significant difference in pregnancy rates in 2 RCTs (RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.15-2.22) or 2 observational cohort studies (RR = 1.1; 95% CI, 0.23-5.26).

Adverse effects or events were reported in 4 studies: 2 cohort studies reported increased injection site reactions with self-administration, and 1 RCT reported increased injection site pain or irritation with self-administration at 3 and 9 months. No other reported adverse effects occurred at higher rates with self-administration vs provider administration.

WHAT’S NEW

Demonstrated effectiveness of self-administered formulation

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that self-administration of DMPA-SC leads to higher contraception continuation rates at 12 months, without notable increased pregnancy rates or adverse effects, when compared with provider-administered DMPA.

Continue to: CAVEATS

Outcome data limited to 12 months

Although self-administered DMPA-SC has the theoretical risk for user error and incorrect administration, this study did not find increased rates of pregnancy despite administration outside a health care center. However, the total number of pregnancies in each of the 4 studies measuring this outcome was low (< 5), and thus the authors noted that the effect size estimates may not be accurate.

Currently, there are no data on long-term outcomes beyond 12 months. Additionally, the health care visits for provider-administered DMPA every 3 months may afford other benefits, such as regular discussion of reproductive health concerns or testing for sexually transmitted infections, which must be weighed against the benefit of increased contraception access with self-administration. However, using the DMPA-SC self-administered formulation at home would not inhibit women from making separate health care visits as needed.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited resources to teach patients how to self-inject

Barriers to implementation include limited experience with prescribing DMPA-SC and changing practice culture to offer it to patients. Additionally, successful implementation of self-administered DMPA-SC is reliant on providing patients with appropriate information and training on self-injection, which requires knowledge, time, and other resources­ that may be limited in practices. Another potential barrier is product access, as not all insurers cover DMPA-SC and some pharmacies do not carry it.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 52-year-old woman presents to the emergency department complaining of dysuria and a fever. Her work-up yields a diagnosis of sepsis secondary to pyelonephritis and bacteremia. She is admitted and started on broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. The patient’s symptoms improve significantly over the next 48 hours of treatment. When should antibiotic therapy be discontinued to reduce the patient’s risk for antibiotic-associated AEs and to optimize antimicrobial stewardship?

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing public health risk associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, extended hospitalization, and increased medical expenditures.^2-4 Antibiotic stewardship is vital in curbing antimicrobial resistance. The predictive biomarker PCT has emerged as both a diagnostic and prognostic agent for numerous infectious diseases. It has recently received much attention as an adjunct to clinical judgment for discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with lower respiratory tract infections and/or sepsis.^5-11 Indeed, use of PCT guidance in these patients has resulted in decreased AEs, as well as an enhanced survival benefit.^5-15

The utility of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotics had yet to be studied in an expanded population of hospitalized patients with sepsis—especially with regard to AEs associated with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile). The Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s 2021 international guidelines support the use of PCT in conjunction with clinical evaluation for shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy (“weak recommendation, low quality of evidence”).¹⁶ They also suggest daily reassessment for de-­escalation of antibiotic use (“weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence”) as a possible way to decrease MDROs and AEs but state that more and better trials are needed.¹⁵

STUDY SUMMARY

PCT-guided intervention reduced infection-associated AEs

This pragmatic, real-world, multicenter, randomized clinical trial evaluated the use of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in patients with sepsis, in hopes of decreasing infection-associated AEs related to prolonged antibiotic exposure.¹ The trial took place in 7 hospitals in Athens, Greece, with 266 patients randomized to the PCT-guided intervention or the standard of care (SOC)—the 2016 international guidelines for the management of sepsis and septic shock from the Surviving Sepsis campaign.¹⁷ Study participants had sepsis, as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2, and infections that included pneumonia, pyelonephritis, or bacteremia.¹⁶ Pregnancy, lactation, HIV infection with a low CD4 count, neutropenia, cystic fibrosis, and viral, parasitic, or tuberculosis infections were exclusion criteria. Of note, all patients were managed on general medical wards and not in intensive care units.

This trial demonstrated the benefit of PCT-guided antimicrobial therapy in reducing infection-associated AEs, length of antibiotic treatment, and 28-day mortality for patients with sepsis.

Serum PCT samples were collected at baseline and then at Day 5 of therapy. ­Discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in the PCT trial arm occurred once PCT levels were ≤ 0.5 mcg/L or were reduced by at least 80%. If PCT levels did not meet one of these criteria, the lab test would be repeated daily and antibiotic therapy would continue until the rule was met. Neither patients nor investigators were blinded to the treatment assignments, but investigators in the SOC arm were kept unaware of Day 5 PCT results. In the PCT arm, 71% of participants met Day 5 criteria for stopping antibiotics, and a retrospective analysis indicated that a near-identical 70% in the SOC arm also would have met the same criteria.

The assessment of stool colonization with either C difficile or MDROs was done by stool cultures at baseline and on Days 7, 28, and 180.

The primary outcome of infection-­associated AEs, which was evaluated at 180 days, was defined as new cases of C difficile or MDRO infection, or death associated with baseline infection with either C difficile or an MDRO. Of the 133 participants allocated to each trial arm, 8 patients in the intervention group and 2 in the SOC group withdrew consent prior to treatment in the intervention group, with the remaining 125 and 131 participants, respectively, completing the interventions and not lost to follow-up.

Continue to: In an intention-to-treat analysis...

In an intention-to-treat analysis, 9 participants (7.2%; 95% CI, 3.8%-13.1%) in the PCT group compared with 20 participants (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%) in the SOC group experienced the primary outcome of an antibiotic-associated AE at 180 days, resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.2-0.98).

Secondary outcomes also favored the PCT arm regarding 28-day mortality (19 vs 37 patients; HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.89), median length of antibiotic treatment (5 days in the PCT group and 10 days in the SOC group; P < .001), and median hospitalization cost (24% greater in the SOC group; P = .05). Results for 180-day mortality were 30.4% in the PCT arm and 38.2% in the SOC arm (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.19), thereby not achieving statistical significance.

WHAT'S NEW

An effective tool in reducing AEs in patients with sepsis

In this multicenter trial, PCT proved successful as a clinical decision tool for discontinuing antibiotic therapy and decreasing infection-associated AEs in patients with sepsis.

Caveats

A promising approach but its superiority is uncertain

The confidence interval for the AE hazard ratio was very wide, but significant, suggesting greater uncertainty and less precision in the chance of obtaining improved outcomes with PCT-guided intervention. However, these data also clarify that outcomes should (at least) not be worse with PCT-directed therapy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Assay limitations and potential resistance to a new decision tool

The primary challenge to implementation is likely the availability of the PCT assay and the immediacy of turnaround time to enable physicians to make daily decisions regarding antibiotic therapy de-escalation. Additionally, as with any new knowledge, local culture and physician buy-in may limit implementation of this ever-more-valuable patient care tool.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 52-year-old woman presents to the emergency department complaining of dysuria and a fever. Her work-up yields a diagnosis of sepsis secondary to pyelonephritis and bacteremia. She is admitted and started on broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. The patient’s symptoms improve significantly over the next 48 hours of treatment. When should antibiotic therapy be discontinued to reduce the patient’s risk for antibiotic-associated AEs and to optimize antimicrobial stewardship?

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing public health risk associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, extended hospitalization, and increased medical expenditures.^2-4 Antibiotic stewardship is vital in curbing antimicrobial resistance. The predictive biomarker PCT has emerged as both a diagnostic and prognostic agent for numerous infectious diseases. It has recently received much attention as an adjunct to clinical judgment for discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with lower respiratory tract infections and/or sepsis.^5-11 Indeed, use of PCT guidance in these patients has resulted in decreased AEs, as well as an enhanced survival benefit.^5-15

The utility of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotics had yet to be studied in an expanded population of hospitalized patients with sepsis—especially with regard to AEs associated with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile). The Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s 2021 international guidelines support the use of PCT in conjunction with clinical evaluation for shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy (“weak recommendation, low quality of evidence”).¹⁶ They also suggest daily reassessment for de-­escalation of antibiotic use (“weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence”) as a possible way to decrease MDROs and AEs but state that more and better trials are needed.¹⁵

STUDY SUMMARY

PCT-guided intervention reduced infection-associated AEs

This pragmatic, real-world, multicenter, randomized clinical trial evaluated the use of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in patients with sepsis, in hopes of decreasing infection-associated AEs related to prolonged antibiotic exposure.¹ The trial took place in 7 hospitals in Athens, Greece, with 266 patients randomized to the PCT-guided intervention or the standard of care (SOC)—the 2016 international guidelines for the management of sepsis and septic shock from the Surviving Sepsis campaign.¹⁷ Study participants had sepsis, as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2, and infections that included pneumonia, pyelonephritis, or bacteremia.¹⁶ Pregnancy, lactation, HIV infection with a low CD4 count, neutropenia, cystic fibrosis, and viral, parasitic, or tuberculosis infections were exclusion criteria. Of note, all patients were managed on general medical wards and not in intensive care units.

This trial demonstrated the benefit of PCT-guided antimicrobial therapy in reducing infection-associated AEs, length of antibiotic treatment, and 28-day mortality for patients with sepsis.

Serum PCT samples were collected at baseline and then at Day 5 of therapy. ­Discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in the PCT trial arm occurred once PCT levels were ≤ 0.5 mcg/L or were reduced by at least 80%. If PCT levels did not meet one of these criteria, the lab test would be repeated daily and antibiotic therapy would continue until the rule was met. Neither patients nor investigators were blinded to the treatment assignments, but investigators in the SOC arm were kept unaware of Day 5 PCT results. In the PCT arm, 71% of participants met Day 5 criteria for stopping antibiotics, and a retrospective analysis indicated that a near-identical 70% in the SOC arm also would have met the same criteria.

The assessment of stool colonization with either C difficile or MDROs was done by stool cultures at baseline and on Days 7, 28, and 180.

The primary outcome of infection-­associated AEs, which was evaluated at 180 days, was defined as new cases of C difficile or MDRO infection, or death associated with baseline infection with either C difficile or an MDRO. Of the 133 participants allocated to each trial arm, 8 patients in the intervention group and 2 in the SOC group withdrew consent prior to treatment in the intervention group, with the remaining 125 and 131 participants, respectively, completing the interventions and not lost to follow-up.

Continue to: In an intention-to-treat analysis...

In an intention-to-treat analysis, 9 participants (7.2%; 95% CI, 3.8%-13.1%) in the PCT group compared with 20 participants (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%) in the SOC group experienced the primary outcome of an antibiotic-associated AE at 180 days, resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.2-0.98).

Secondary outcomes also favored the PCT arm regarding 28-day mortality (19 vs 37 patients; HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.89), median length of antibiotic treatment (5 days in the PCT group and 10 days in the SOC group; P < .001), and median hospitalization cost (24% greater in the SOC group; P = .05). Results for 180-day mortality were 30.4% in the PCT arm and 38.2% in the SOC arm (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.19), thereby not achieving statistical significance.

WHAT'S NEW

An effective tool in reducing AEs in patients with sepsis

In this multicenter trial, PCT proved successful as a clinical decision tool for discontinuing antibiotic therapy and decreasing infection-associated AEs in patients with sepsis.

Caveats

A promising approach but its superiority is uncertain

The confidence interval for the AE hazard ratio was very wide, but significant, suggesting greater uncertainty and less precision in the chance of obtaining improved outcomes with PCT-guided intervention. However, these data also clarify that outcomes should (at least) not be worse with PCT-directed therapy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Assay limitations and potential resistance to a new decision tool

The primary challenge to implementation is likely the availability of the PCT assay and the immediacy of turnaround time to enable physicians to make daily decisions regarding antibiotic therapy de-escalation. Additionally, as with any new knowledge, local culture and physician buy-in may limit implementation of this ever-more-valuable patient care tool.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 52-year-old woman presents to the emergency department complaining of dysuria and a fever. Her work-up yields a diagnosis of sepsis secondary to pyelonephritis and bacteremia. She is admitted and started on broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. The patient’s symptoms improve significantly over the next 48 hours of treatment. When should antibiotic therapy be discontinued to reduce the patient’s risk for antibiotic-associated AEs and to optimize antimicrobial stewardship?

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing public health risk associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, extended hospitalization, and increased medical expenditures.^2-4 Antibiotic stewardship is vital in curbing antimicrobial resistance. The predictive biomarker PCT has emerged as both a diagnostic and prognostic agent for numerous infectious diseases. It has recently received much attention as an adjunct to clinical judgment for discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with lower respiratory tract infections and/or sepsis.^5-11 Indeed, use of PCT guidance in these patients has resulted in decreased AEs, as well as an enhanced survival benefit.^5-15

The utility of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotics had yet to be studied in an expanded population of hospitalized patients with sepsis—especially with regard to AEs associated with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile). The Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s 2021 international guidelines support the use of PCT in conjunction with clinical evaluation for shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy (“weak recommendation, low quality of evidence”).¹⁶ They also suggest daily reassessment for de-­escalation of antibiotic use (“weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence”) as a possible way to decrease MDROs and AEs but state that more and better trials are needed.¹⁵

STUDY SUMMARY

PCT-guided intervention reduced infection-associated AEs

This pragmatic, real-world, multicenter, randomized clinical trial evaluated the use of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in patients with sepsis, in hopes of decreasing infection-associated AEs related to prolonged antibiotic exposure.¹ The trial took place in 7 hospitals in Athens, Greece, with 266 patients randomized to the PCT-guided intervention or the standard of care (SOC)—the 2016 international guidelines for the management of sepsis and septic shock from the Surviving Sepsis campaign.¹⁷ Study participants had sepsis, as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2, and infections that included pneumonia, pyelonephritis, or bacteremia.¹⁶ Pregnancy, lactation, HIV infection with a low CD4 count, neutropenia, cystic fibrosis, and viral, parasitic, or tuberculosis infections were exclusion criteria. Of note, all patients were managed on general medical wards and not in intensive care units.

This trial demonstrated the benefit of PCT-guided antimicrobial therapy in reducing infection-associated AEs, length of antibiotic treatment, and 28-day mortality for patients with sepsis.

Serum PCT samples were collected at baseline and then at Day 5 of therapy. ­Discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in the PCT trial arm occurred once PCT levels were ≤ 0.5 mcg/L or were reduced by at least 80%. If PCT levels did not meet one of these criteria, the lab test would be repeated daily and antibiotic therapy would continue until the rule was met. Neither patients nor investigators were blinded to the treatment assignments, but investigators in the SOC arm were kept unaware of Day 5 PCT results. In the PCT arm, 71% of participants met Day 5 criteria for stopping antibiotics, and a retrospective analysis indicated that a near-identical 70% in the SOC arm also would have met the same criteria.

The assessment of stool colonization with either C difficile or MDROs was done by stool cultures at baseline and on Days 7, 28, and 180.

The primary outcome of infection-­associated AEs, which was evaluated at 180 days, was defined as new cases of C difficile or MDRO infection, or death associated with baseline infection with either C difficile or an MDRO. Of the 133 participants allocated to each trial arm, 8 patients in the intervention group and 2 in the SOC group withdrew consent prior to treatment in the intervention group, with the remaining 125 and 131 participants, respectively, completing the interventions and not lost to follow-up.

Continue to: In an intention-to-treat analysis...

In an intention-to-treat analysis, 9 participants (7.2%; 95% CI, 3.8%-13.1%) in the PCT group compared with 20 participants (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%) in the SOC group experienced the primary outcome of an antibiotic-associated AE at 180 days, resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.2-0.98).

Secondary outcomes also favored the PCT arm regarding 28-day mortality (19 vs 37 patients; HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.89), median length of antibiotic treatment (5 days in the PCT group and 10 days in the SOC group; P < .001), and median hospitalization cost (24% greater in the SOC group; P = .05). Results for 180-day mortality were 30.4% in the PCT arm and 38.2% in the SOC arm (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.19), thereby not achieving statistical significance.

WHAT'S NEW

An effective tool in reducing AEs in patients with sepsis

In this multicenter trial, PCT proved successful as a clinical decision tool for discontinuing antibiotic therapy and decreasing infection-associated AEs in patients with sepsis.

Caveats

A promising approach but its superiority is uncertain

The confidence interval for the AE hazard ratio was very wide, but significant, suggesting greater uncertainty and less precision in the chance of obtaining improved outcomes with PCT-guided intervention. However, these data also clarify that outcomes should (at least) not be worse with PCT-directed therapy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Assay limitations and potential resistance to a new decision tool

The primary challenge to implementation is likely the availability of the PCT assay and the immediacy of turnaround time to enable physicians to make daily decisions regarding antibiotic therapy de-escalation. Additionally, as with any new knowledge, local culture and physician buy-in may limit implementation of this ever-more-valuable patient care tool.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 17-year-old high school football player presents to the emergency department (ED) after a helmet-to-helmet tackle in a game earlier that day. After the tackle, he experienced immediate confusion. Once he returned to his feet, he felt dizzy and nauseated and began to develop a headache. When his symptoms failed to resolve within a few hours, his mother brought him to the hospital for an evaluation. In the ED, he receives a diagnosis of concussion, and his mother asks for recommendations on how he can recover as quickly as possible.

Traumatic brain injuries account for an estimated 2.5 million ED visits annually in the United States.² Concussions are the most common form of traumatic brain injury, with adolescents contributing to the highest incidence of concussions.^3,4 An estimated 1.6 to 3.8 million people experience a sports-related concussion annually.⁵

Time to recovery is a clinical endpoint that matters greatly to our young, physically active patients, who are often eager to return to their daily activities as soon as possible. Guidelines frequently recommend cognitive and physical rest for 24 to 48 hours immediately following a concussion, but the use of screens during this cognitive rest period remains uncertain.^6,7 International guidelines and the Centers for Disease Control and ­Prevention recommend symptom-limited activities—including screen time—during the initial period of a concussion.^6,7 Although this gradual approach is standard of care, it has been unclear if abstaining completely from certain activities during the initial days of a concussion has any impact on recovery time.

Recent studies have examined physical activity to clarify the optimal timing of physical rest after a concussion. Among adolescents with concussions, strict rest for 5 days does not appear to improve symptoms compared with rest for 1 to 2 days.⁸ Additionally, physical activity within 7 days of acute head injury may help reduce symptoms and prevent postconcussive symptoms.^9,10

This same level of clarity has been lacking for cognitive rest and screen time. The use of screens is a part of most patients’ daily activities, particularly among adolescents and young adults. One report found that students ages 8 to 18 years engage in approximately 7 hours of daily screen time, excluding that related to schoolwork.¹¹ This trial evaluated the relationship between screen time abstinence within 48 hours of a concussion and time to symptom resolution.

STUDY SUMMARY

Symptom duration was significantly reduced by cutting screen time

This single-site, parallel-design, randomized clinical trial examined the effectiveness of limiting screen time exposure within the first 48 hours after a concussion in reducing the time to resolution of concussive symptoms in 125 patients. ¹ Patients were included if they were 12 to 25 years old (mean age, 17 years) and presented within 24 hours of sustaining a concussion (as defined on the Acute Concussion Evaluation–Emergency Department tool) to the pediatric or adult ED at a US tertiary medical center.

A shared decision-making discussion should center on the idea that 48 hours of screen time abstinence could be well worth the increased likelihood of total recovery at Day 10.

Patients were randomized to either ­engage in screen time as tolerated or to abstain from screen time for 48 hours following their injury. Screen modalities included television, phones, video games, and computers/­tablets. The Post-Concussive Symptom Scale (PCSS; 0-132) was used to characterize 22 symptoms from 0 (absent) to 6 (severe) daily for 10 days. Patients also self-reported the amount of screen time they engaged in during Days 1 to 3 of the study period and completed an activity survey on Days 4 to 10. Among the participants, 76% completed the PCSS form until symptom resolution or until Day 10 (the end of the study period).

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was days to resolution of concussive symptoms, defined as a PCSS score ≤ 3. The median baseline PCSS score was 21 in the screen time–permitted group and 24.5 in the screen time–abstinent group. The screen time–permitted group reported a median screen time of 630 minutes during the intervention period, compared with 130 minutes in the screen time–abstinent group, and was less likely to recover during the study period than the screen time–­abstinent group (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.90). The screen time–permitted group had a significantly longer median recovery time compared with the screen time–­abstinent group (8.0 vs 3.5 days; P = .03).

WHAT'S NEW?

Exploring the role of screen time during the cognitive rest period

This study provides evidence supporting the recommendation that adolescent and young adult patients abstain from screen time in the first 48 hours following a concussion to decrease time to symptom resolution, thus shortening the timeline to return to their usual daily activities.

CAVEATS

Self-reporting of data may introduce bias

This study used a self-reporting method to collect data, which could have resulted in underreporting or overreporting of screen time and potentially introduced recall and reporting bias. The screen time–abstinent group did not completely abstain from all screen time, with a self-reported average of 5 to 10 minutes of daily screen time to complete the required research surveys, so it is not immediately clear what extent of abstinence vs significant screen time reduction led to the clinical endpoints observed. Furthermore, this study did not ask patients to differentiate between active screen time (eg, texting and gaming) and passive screen time (eg, watching videos), which may differentially impact symptom resolution.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Turning off the ever-present screen may present obstacles

This intervention is easy to recommend, with few barriers to implementation. It’s worth noting that screens are often used in a patient’s school or job, and 48 hours of abstinence from these activities is a difficult ask when much of our society’s education, entertainment, and productivity revolve around the use of technology. When appropriate, a shared decision-making discussion between patient and physician should center on the idea that 48 hours of screen time abstinence could be well worth the increased likelihood of total recovery at Day 10, as opposed to the risk for persistent and prolonged symptoms that interfere with the patient’s lifestyle.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 17-year-old high school football player presents to the emergency department (ED) after a helmet-to-helmet tackle in a game earlier that day. After the tackle, he experienced immediate confusion. Once he returned to his feet, he felt dizzy and nauseated and began to develop a headache. When his symptoms failed to resolve within a few hours, his mother brought him to the hospital for an evaluation. In the ED, he receives a diagnosis of concussion, and his mother asks for recommendations on how he can recover as quickly as possible.

Traumatic brain injuries account for an estimated 2.5 million ED visits annually in the United States.² Concussions are the most common form of traumatic brain injury, with adolescents contributing to the highest incidence of concussions.^3,4 An estimated 1.6 to 3.8 million people experience a sports-related concussion annually.⁵

Time to recovery is a clinical endpoint that matters greatly to our young, physically active patients, who are often eager to return to their daily activities as soon as possible. Guidelines frequently recommend cognitive and physical rest for 24 to 48 hours immediately following a concussion, but the use of screens during this cognitive rest period remains uncertain.^6,7 International guidelines and the Centers for Disease Control and ­Prevention recommend symptom-limited activities—including screen time—during the initial period of a concussion.^6,7 Although this gradual approach is standard of care, it has been unclear if abstaining completely from certain activities during the initial days of a concussion has any impact on recovery time.

Recent studies have examined physical activity to clarify the optimal timing of physical rest after a concussion. Among adolescents with concussions, strict rest for 5 days does not appear to improve symptoms compared with rest for 1 to 2 days.⁸ Additionally, physical activity within 7 days of acute head injury may help reduce symptoms and prevent postconcussive symptoms.^9,10

This same level of clarity has been lacking for cognitive rest and screen time. The use of screens is a part of most patients’ daily activities, particularly among adolescents and young adults. One report found that students ages 8 to 18 years engage in approximately 7 hours of daily screen time, excluding that related to schoolwork.¹¹ This trial evaluated the relationship between screen time abstinence within 48 hours of a concussion and time to symptom resolution.

STUDY SUMMARY

Symptom duration was significantly reduced by cutting screen time

This single-site, parallel-design, randomized clinical trial examined the effectiveness of limiting screen time exposure within the first 48 hours after a concussion in reducing the time to resolution of concussive symptoms in 125 patients. ¹ Patients were included if they were 12 to 25 years old (mean age, 17 years) and presented within 24 hours of sustaining a concussion (as defined on the Acute Concussion Evaluation–Emergency Department tool) to the pediatric or adult ED at a US tertiary medical center.

A shared decision-making discussion should center on the idea that 48 hours of screen time abstinence could be well worth the increased likelihood of total recovery at Day 10.

Patients were randomized to either ­engage in screen time as tolerated or to abstain from screen time for 48 hours following their injury. Screen modalities included television, phones, video games, and computers/­tablets. The Post-Concussive Symptom Scale (PCSS; 0-132) was used to characterize 22 symptoms from 0 (absent) to 6 (severe) daily for 10 days. Patients also self-reported the amount of screen time they engaged in during Days 1 to 3 of the study period and completed an activity survey on Days 4 to 10. Among the participants, 76% completed the PCSS form until symptom resolution or until Day 10 (the end of the study period).

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was days to resolution of concussive symptoms, defined as a PCSS score ≤ 3. The median baseline PCSS score was 21 in the screen time–permitted group and 24.5 in the screen time–abstinent group. The screen time–permitted group reported a median screen time of 630 minutes during the intervention period, compared with 130 minutes in the screen time–abstinent group, and was less likely to recover during the study period than the screen time–­abstinent group (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.90). The screen time–permitted group had a significantly longer median recovery time compared with the screen time–­abstinent group (8.0 vs 3.5 days; P = .03).

WHAT'S NEW?

Exploring the role of screen time during the cognitive rest period

This study provides evidence supporting the recommendation that adolescent and young adult patients abstain from screen time in the first 48 hours following a concussion to decrease time to symptom resolution, thus shortening the timeline to return to their usual daily activities.

CAVEATS

Self-reporting of data may introduce bias

This study used a self-reporting method to collect data, which could have resulted in underreporting or overreporting of screen time and potentially introduced recall and reporting bias. The screen time–abstinent group did not completely abstain from all screen time, with a self-reported average of 5 to 10 minutes of daily screen time to complete the required research surveys, so it is not immediately clear what extent of abstinence vs significant screen time reduction led to the clinical endpoints observed. Furthermore, this study did not ask patients to differentiate between active screen time (eg, texting and gaming) and passive screen time (eg, watching videos), which may differentially impact symptom resolution.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Turning off the ever-present screen may present obstacles

This intervention is easy to recommend, with few barriers to implementation. It’s worth noting that screens are often used in a patient’s school or job, and 48 hours of abstinence from these activities is a difficult ask when much of our society’s education, entertainment, and productivity revolve around the use of technology. When appropriate, a shared decision-making discussion between patient and physician should center on the idea that 48 hours of screen time abstinence could be well worth the increased likelihood of total recovery at Day 10, as opposed to the risk for persistent and prolonged symptoms that interfere with the patient’s lifestyle.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 17-year-old high school football player presents to the emergency department (ED) after a helmet-to-helmet tackle in a game earlier that day. After the tackle, he experienced immediate confusion. Once he returned to his feet, he felt dizzy and nauseated and began to develop a headache. When his symptoms failed to resolve within a few hours, his mother brought him to the hospital for an evaluation. In the ED, he receives a diagnosis of concussion, and his mother asks for recommendations on how he can recover as quickly as possible.

Traumatic brain injuries account for an estimated 2.5 million ED visits annually in the United States.² Concussions are the most common form of traumatic brain injury, with adolescents contributing to the highest incidence of concussions.^3,4 An estimated 1.6 to 3.8 million people experience a sports-related concussion annually.⁵

Time to recovery is a clinical endpoint that matters greatly to our young, physically active patients, who are often eager to return to their daily activities as soon as possible. Guidelines frequently recommend cognitive and physical rest for 24 to 48 hours immediately following a concussion, but the use of screens during this cognitive rest period remains uncertain.^6,7 International guidelines and the Centers for Disease Control and ­Prevention recommend symptom-limited activities—including screen time—during the initial period of a concussion.^6,7 Although this gradual approach is standard of care, it has been unclear if abstaining completely from certain activities during the initial days of a concussion has any impact on recovery time.

Recent studies have examined physical activity to clarify the optimal timing of physical rest after a concussion. Among adolescents with concussions, strict rest for 5 days does not appear to improve symptoms compared with rest for 1 to 2 days.⁸ Additionally, physical activity within 7 days of acute head injury may help reduce symptoms and prevent postconcussive symptoms.^9,10

This same level of clarity has been lacking for cognitive rest and screen time. The use of screens is a part of most patients’ daily activities, particularly among adolescents and young adults. One report found that students ages 8 to 18 years engage in approximately 7 hours of daily screen time, excluding that related to schoolwork.¹¹ This trial evaluated the relationship between screen time abstinence within 48 hours of a concussion and time to symptom resolution.

STUDY SUMMARY

Symptom duration was significantly reduced by cutting screen time

This single-site, parallel-design, randomized clinical trial examined the effectiveness of limiting screen time exposure within the first 48 hours after a concussion in reducing the time to resolution of concussive symptoms in 125 patients. ¹ Patients were included if they were 12 to 25 years old (mean age, 17 years) and presented within 24 hours of sustaining a concussion (as defined on the Acute Concussion Evaluation–Emergency Department tool) to the pediatric or adult ED at a US tertiary medical center.

A shared decision-making discussion should center on the idea that 48 hours of screen time abstinence could be well worth the increased likelihood of total recovery at Day 10.

Patients were randomized to either ­engage in screen time as tolerated or to abstain from screen time for 48 hours following their injury. Screen modalities included television, phones, video games, and computers/­tablets. The Post-Concussive Symptom Scale (PCSS; 0-132) was used to characterize 22 symptoms from 0 (absent) to 6 (severe) daily for 10 days. Patients also self-reported the amount of screen time they engaged in during Days 1 to 3 of the study period and completed an activity survey on Days 4 to 10. Among the participants, 76% completed the PCSS form until symptom resolution or until Day 10 (the end of the study period).

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was days to resolution of concussive symptoms, defined as a PCSS score ≤ 3. The median baseline PCSS score was 21 in the screen time–permitted group and 24.5 in the screen time–abstinent group. The screen time–permitted group reported a median screen time of 630 minutes during the intervention period, compared with 130 minutes in the screen time–abstinent group, and was less likely to recover during the study period than the screen time–­abstinent group (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.90). The screen time–permitted group had a significantly longer median recovery time compared with the screen time–­abstinent group (8.0 vs 3.5 days; P = .03).

WHAT'S NEW?

Exploring the role of screen time during the cognitive rest period

This study provides evidence supporting the recommendation that adolescent and young adult patients abstain from screen time in the first 48 hours following a concussion to decrease time to symptom resolution, thus shortening the timeline to return to their usual daily activities.

CAVEATS

Self-reporting of data may introduce bias

This study used a self-reporting method to collect data, which could have resulted in underreporting or overreporting of screen time and potentially introduced recall and reporting bias. The screen time–abstinent group did not completely abstain from all screen time, with a self-reported average of 5 to 10 minutes of daily screen time to complete the required research surveys, so it is not immediately clear what extent of abstinence vs significant screen time reduction led to the clinical endpoints observed. Furthermore, this study did not ask patients to differentiate between active screen time (eg, texting and gaming) and passive screen time (eg, watching videos), which may differentially impact symptom resolution.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Turning off the ever-present screen may present obstacles

This intervention is easy to recommend, with few barriers to implementation. It’s worth noting that screens are often used in a patient’s school or job, and 48 hours of abstinence from these activities is a difficult ask when much of our society’s education, entertainment, and productivity revolve around the use of technology. When appropriate, a shared decision-making discussion between patient and physician should center on the idea that 48 hours of screen time abstinence could be well worth the increased likelihood of total recovery at Day 10, as opposed to the risk for persistent and prolonged symptoms that interfere with the patient’s lifestyle.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 72-year-old man with a history of hypertension, permanent atrial fibrillation, and heart failure (HF) comes into your clinic for follow-up. He was hospitalized a few months ago for HF requiring diuresis. His echocardiogram at that time showed an EF of 50% and no significant valvular disease. He does not have a history of diabetes or tobacco use. His medication regimen includes metoprolol, lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide, apixaban, and atorvastatin. The patient is still symptomatic from his HF and asks you if there is anything else he can do to prevent another hospitalization for HF.

HFpEF was first defined as HF in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 40%. However, HF with an LVEF between 41% and 49% has been reclassified as its own category: heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).² HFpEF is now diagnosed when the patient has HF symptoms and an LVEF ≥ 50%, mimickers (lung disease, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary hypertension, and renal disease) have been excluded, and there is evidence of elevated left ventricular filling pressure or noninvasive correlates such as elevated natriuretic peptides. It is estimated that HFpEF comprises half of all patients with HF.³

In comparison with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there are limited proven treatment options with cardiovascular (CV) benefit in HFpEF.⁴ Spironolactone is associated with a slight decrease in HF-­related hospitalizations but not with a reduction in CV or all-cause mortality for patients with HFpEF.^4,5 Angiotensin-­converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and beta-blockers have not been shown to reduce morbidity or mortality in HFpEF when not indicated for another reason.^6,7 Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are known to decrease the development and progression of HFrEF⁸; however, the effect of SGLT2 inhibition in patients with HFpEF remains unclear. Post hoc analyses of a multicenter trial of dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes indicated no reduction in CV death, hospitalization, or all-cause mortality in HFpEF.⁹ Another study found improved CV mortality and decreased HF-related urgent visits and hospitalizations with sotagliflozin, but the number of events was too small to estimate a treatment effect.¹⁰ Given this uncertainty, the Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-­Preserved) was conducted to evaluate the effects of SGLT2 inhibition with empagliflozin in patients with HFpEF.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Confirmation of benefit of empagliflozin for patients with HFpEF

The EMPEROR-Preserved study was a ­double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized adult patients with HFpEF (defined by an LVEF > 40%) to either placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg/d, in addition to usual therapy. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio stratified by geographic region, diabetes status, renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] either < 60 or ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m²), and LVEF > 40% to < 50% or LVEF ≥ 50%.

For patients with HFpEF, empagliflozin added to usual care significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure, regardless of whether patients had diabetes.

Included patients were 18 years or older and had an NT-proBNP level > 300 pg/mL (or > 900 pg/mL if the patient had atrial fibrillation at baseline), an LVEF > 40%, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV symptoms at baseline. Patients with a CV event in the preceding 90 days, systolic blood pressure ≥ 180 mm Hg, or significant valvular disease were excluded from the study.

The primary outcome was a composite of CV death or first hospitalization for HF. The secondary outcomes were all hospitalizations for HF and the rate of decline in eGFR.

Of the 5988 patients in the trial, 2997 were randomized to receive empagliflozin and 2991 were randomized to placebo. The average age was 72 years in each group, 45% of patients were women, about 76% were White, and 12% were from North America. About 81% of patients were classified as NYHA class II, nearly half had diabetes, and half had an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m². The median body mass index (BMI) was 30, and the median LVEF was 54%. At baseline, the groups were similar in BMI, history of HF hospitalization in the past 12 months, history of common risk factors for HFpEF (atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension), and prescribed CV medications (ACE inhibitor or ARB with or without a neprilysin inhibitor, spironolactone, beta-blocker, digitalis glycosides, aspirin, and statins). Patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months.

Continue to: The primary composite...

The primary composite outcome of death from CV causes or HF-related hospitalization occurred in 415 patients (13.8%) in the empagliflozin group and in 511 patients (17.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P < .001). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 primary outcome event was 31 (95% CI, 20-69). Hospitalization for HF occurred in 259 patients (8.6%) with empagliflozin vs 352 patients (11.8%) with placebo (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.83), and CV death occurred in 219 patients (7.3%) with empagliflozin vs 244 patients (8.2%) with placebo (HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.09). The effect was consistent in patients with or without diabetes at baseline; however, the largest reduction in the primary composite outcome was seen in those with an LVEF < 50%, age ≥ 70 years old, BMI < 30, and NYHA class II status.

The secondary outcome of total number of hospitalizations for HF was 407 with empagliflozin vs 541 with placebo (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88; P < .001). The rate of decline in the eGFR per year was –1.25 in the empagliflozin group vs –2.62 in the placebo group (P < .001), indicating that those taking empagliflozin had preserved renal function compared with those taking placebo.

Death from any cause occurred in 422 patients (14.1%) in the empagliflozin group and 427 patients (14.3%) in the placebo group (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15). Empagliflozin treatment was associated with higher rates of genital infections (2.2% vs 0.7%; P value not provided), urinary tract infections (9.9% vs 8.1%; P value not provided), and hypotension (10.4% vs 8.6%; P value not provided), compared to placebo.

WHAT’S NEW

Risk of hospitalization significantly reduced for patients with HFpEF

In the EMPEROR-Preserved study, empagliflozin led to a lower incidence of hospitalization for HF in patients with HFpEF but did not significantly reduce the number of deaths from CV disease or other causes. In comparison, in the similarly designed EMPEROR-Reduced trial, treatment with empagliflozin reduced CV and all-cause mortality in individuals with HFrEF.⁸

CAVEATS

HF criteria, study population may limit generalizability

The reduction in the primary outcome of CV death or first hospitalization was most pronounced in patients with an LVEF > 40% to < 50%, typically defined as HFmrEF, who often have clinical features similar to those with HFrEF. This raises the question of how generalizable these results are for all patients with HFpEF.

Continue to: The study's generalizability...

Empagliflozin treatment, however, was associated with higher rates of genital infections, urinary tract infections, and hypotension, compared to placebo.

The study’s generalizability was further limited by its significant exclusion criteria, which included elevated blood pressure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen, liver disease, renal disease with an eGFR < 20 mL/min/1.73 m² or requiring dialysis, and BMI ≥ 45.

Finally, only 12% of patients were from North America, and results were not significant for this subgroup (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00), which may challenge its external validity. The authors noted that 23% of patients discontinued treatment for reasons other than death, which may have driven the null effect.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Empagliflozin is expensive,but coverage may improve

Cost could be a major barrier to implementation. Retail pricing for empagliflozin is estimated to be more than $550 per month, which may be prohibitive for patients with no insurance or with higher-deductible plans.¹¹ However, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved empagliflozin to reduce the risk of CV death and hospitalization for HF in adults,¹² which may help to improve insurance coverage.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 72-year-old man with a history of hypertension, permanent atrial fibrillation, and heart failure (HF) comes into your clinic for follow-up. He was hospitalized a few months ago for HF requiring diuresis. His echocardiogram at that time showed an EF of 50% and no significant valvular disease. He does not have a history of diabetes or tobacco use. His medication regimen includes metoprolol, lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide, apixaban, and atorvastatin. The patient is still symptomatic from his HF and asks you if there is anything else he can do to prevent another hospitalization for HF.

HFpEF was first defined as HF in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 40%. However, HF with an LVEF between 41% and 49% has been reclassified as its own category: heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).² HFpEF is now diagnosed when the patient has HF symptoms and an LVEF ≥ 50%, mimickers (lung disease, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary hypertension, and renal disease) have been excluded, and there is evidence of elevated left ventricular filling pressure or noninvasive correlates such as elevated natriuretic peptides. It is estimated that HFpEF comprises half of all patients with HF.³

In comparison with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there are limited proven treatment options with cardiovascular (CV) benefit in HFpEF.⁴ Spironolactone is associated with a slight decrease in HF-­related hospitalizations but not with a reduction in CV or all-cause mortality for patients with HFpEF.^4,5 Angiotensin-­converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and beta-blockers have not been shown to reduce morbidity or mortality in HFpEF when not indicated for another reason.^6,7 Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are known to decrease the development and progression of HFrEF⁸; however, the effect of SGLT2 inhibition in patients with HFpEF remains unclear. Post hoc analyses of a multicenter trial of dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes indicated no reduction in CV death, hospitalization, or all-cause mortality in HFpEF.⁹ Another study found improved CV mortality and decreased HF-related urgent visits and hospitalizations with sotagliflozin, but the number of events was too small to estimate a treatment effect.¹⁰ Given this uncertainty, the Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-­Preserved) was conducted to evaluate the effects of SGLT2 inhibition with empagliflozin in patients with HFpEF.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Confirmation of benefit of empagliflozin for patients with HFpEF

The EMPEROR-Preserved study was a ­double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized adult patients with HFpEF (defined by an LVEF > 40%) to either placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg/d, in addition to usual therapy. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio stratified by geographic region, diabetes status, renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] either < 60 or ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m²), and LVEF > 40% to < 50% or LVEF ≥ 50%.

For patients with HFpEF, empagliflozin added to usual care significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure, regardless of whether patients had diabetes.

Included patients were 18 years or older and had an NT-proBNP level > 300 pg/mL (or > 900 pg/mL if the patient had atrial fibrillation at baseline), an LVEF > 40%, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV symptoms at baseline. Patients with a CV event in the preceding 90 days, systolic blood pressure ≥ 180 mm Hg, or significant valvular disease were excluded from the study.

The primary outcome was a composite of CV death or first hospitalization for HF. The secondary outcomes were all hospitalizations for HF and the rate of decline in eGFR.

Of the 5988 patients in the trial, 2997 were randomized to receive empagliflozin and 2991 were randomized to placebo. The average age was 72 years in each group, 45% of patients were women, about 76% were White, and 12% were from North America. About 81% of patients were classified as NYHA class II, nearly half had diabetes, and half had an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m². The median body mass index (BMI) was 30, and the median LVEF was 54%. At baseline, the groups were similar in BMI, history of HF hospitalization in the past 12 months, history of common risk factors for HFpEF (atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension), and prescribed CV medications (ACE inhibitor or ARB with or without a neprilysin inhibitor, spironolactone, beta-blocker, digitalis glycosides, aspirin, and statins). Patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months.

Continue to: The primary composite...

The primary composite outcome of death from CV causes or HF-related hospitalization occurred in 415 patients (13.8%) in the empagliflozin group and in 511 patients (17.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P < .001). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 primary outcome event was 31 (95% CI, 20-69). Hospitalization for HF occurred in 259 patients (8.6%) with empagliflozin vs 352 patients (11.8%) with placebo (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.83), and CV death occurred in 219 patients (7.3%) with empagliflozin vs 244 patients (8.2%) with placebo (HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.09). The effect was consistent in patients with or without diabetes at baseline; however, the largest reduction in the primary composite outcome was seen in those with an LVEF < 50%, age ≥ 70 years old, BMI < 30, and NYHA class II status.

The secondary outcome of total number of hospitalizations for HF was 407 with empagliflozin vs 541 with placebo (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88; P < .001). The rate of decline in the eGFR per year was –1.25 in the empagliflozin group vs –2.62 in the placebo group (P < .001), indicating that those taking empagliflozin had preserved renal function compared with those taking placebo.

Death from any cause occurred in 422 patients (14.1%) in the empagliflozin group and 427 patients (14.3%) in the placebo group (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15). Empagliflozin treatment was associated with higher rates of genital infections (2.2% vs 0.7%; P value not provided), urinary tract infections (9.9% vs 8.1%; P value not provided), and hypotension (10.4% vs 8.6%; P value not provided), compared to placebo.

WHAT’S NEW

Risk of hospitalization significantly reduced for patients with HFpEF

In the EMPEROR-Preserved study, empagliflozin led to a lower incidence of hospitalization for HF in patients with HFpEF but did not significantly reduce the number of deaths from CV disease or other causes. In comparison, in the similarly designed EMPEROR-Reduced trial, treatment with empagliflozin reduced CV and all-cause mortality in individuals with HFrEF.⁸

CAVEATS

HF criteria, study population may limit generalizability

The reduction in the primary outcome of CV death or first hospitalization was most pronounced in patients with an LVEF > 40% to < 50%, typically defined as HFmrEF, who often have clinical features similar to those with HFrEF. This raises the question of how generalizable these results are for all patients with HFpEF.

Continue to: The study's generalizability...

Empagliflozin treatment, however, was associated with higher rates of genital infections, urinary tract infections, and hypotension, compared to placebo.

The study’s generalizability was further limited by its significant exclusion criteria, which included elevated blood pressure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen, liver disease, renal disease with an eGFR < 20 mL/min/1.73 m² or requiring dialysis, and BMI ≥ 45.

Finally, only 12% of patients were from North America, and results were not significant for this subgroup (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00), which may challenge its external validity. The authors noted that 23% of patients discontinued treatment for reasons other than death, which may have driven the null effect.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Empagliflozin is expensive,but coverage may improve

Cost could be a major barrier to implementation. Retail pricing for empagliflozin is estimated to be more than $550 per month, which may be prohibitive for patients with no insurance or with higher-deductible plans.¹¹ However, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved empagliflozin to reduce the risk of CV death and hospitalization for HF in adults,¹² which may help to improve insurance coverage.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 72-year-old man with a history of hypertension, permanent atrial fibrillation, and heart failure (HF) comes into your clinic for follow-up. He was hospitalized a few months ago for HF requiring diuresis. His echocardiogram at that time showed an EF of 50% and no significant valvular disease. He does not have a history of diabetes or tobacco use. His medication regimen includes metoprolol, lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide, apixaban, and atorvastatin. The patient is still symptomatic from his HF and asks you if there is anything else he can do to prevent another hospitalization for HF.

HFpEF was first defined as HF in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 40%. However, HF with an LVEF between 41% and 49% has been reclassified as its own category: heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).² HFpEF is now diagnosed when the patient has HF symptoms and an LVEF ≥ 50%, mimickers (lung disease, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary hypertension, and renal disease) have been excluded, and there is evidence of elevated left ventricular filling pressure or noninvasive correlates such as elevated natriuretic peptides. It is estimated that HFpEF comprises half of all patients with HF.³

In comparison with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there are limited proven treatment options with cardiovascular (CV) benefit in HFpEF.⁴ Spironolactone is associated with a slight decrease in HF-­related hospitalizations but not with a reduction in CV or all-cause mortality for patients with HFpEF.^4,5 Angiotensin-­converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and beta-blockers have not been shown to reduce morbidity or mortality in HFpEF when not indicated for another reason.^6,7 Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are known to decrease the development and progression of HFrEF⁸; however, the effect of SGLT2 inhibition in patients with HFpEF remains unclear. Post hoc analyses of a multicenter trial of dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes indicated no reduction in CV death, hospitalization, or all-cause mortality in HFpEF.⁹ Another study found improved CV mortality and decreased HF-related urgent visits and hospitalizations with sotagliflozin, but the number of events was too small to estimate a treatment effect.¹⁰ Given this uncertainty, the Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-­Preserved) was conducted to evaluate the effects of SGLT2 inhibition with empagliflozin in patients with HFpEF.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Confirmation of benefit of empagliflozin for patients with HFpEF

The EMPEROR-Preserved study was a ­double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized adult patients with HFpEF (defined by an LVEF > 40%) to either placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg/d, in addition to usual therapy. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio stratified by geographic region, diabetes status, renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] either < 60 or ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m²), and LVEF > 40% to < 50% or LVEF ≥ 50%.

For patients with HFpEF, empagliflozin added to usual care significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure, regardless of whether patients had diabetes.

Included patients were 18 years or older and had an NT-proBNP level > 300 pg/mL (or > 900 pg/mL if the patient had atrial fibrillation at baseline), an LVEF > 40%, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV symptoms at baseline. Patients with a CV event in the preceding 90 days, systolic blood pressure ≥ 180 mm Hg, or significant valvular disease were excluded from the study.

The primary outcome was a composite of CV death or first hospitalization for HF. The secondary outcomes were all hospitalizations for HF and the rate of decline in eGFR.

Of the 5988 patients in the trial, 2997 were randomized to receive empagliflozin and 2991 were randomized to placebo. The average age was 72 years in each group, 45% of patients were women, about 76% were White, and 12% were from North America. About 81% of patients were classified as NYHA class II, nearly half had diabetes, and half had an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m². The median body mass index (BMI) was 30, and the median LVEF was 54%. At baseline, the groups were similar in BMI, history of HF hospitalization in the past 12 months, history of common risk factors for HFpEF (atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension), and prescribed CV medications (ACE inhibitor or ARB with or without a neprilysin inhibitor, spironolactone, beta-blocker, digitalis glycosides, aspirin, and statins). Patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months.

Continue to: The primary composite...

The primary composite outcome of death from CV causes or HF-related hospitalization occurred in 415 patients (13.8%) in the empagliflozin group and in 511 patients (17.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P < .001). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 primary outcome event was 31 (95% CI, 20-69). Hospitalization for HF occurred in 259 patients (8.6%) with empagliflozin vs 352 patients (11.8%) with placebo (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.83), and CV death occurred in 219 patients (7.3%) with empagliflozin vs 244 patients (8.2%) with placebo (HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.09). The effect was consistent in patients with or without diabetes at baseline; however, the largest reduction in the primary composite outcome was seen in those with an LVEF < 50%, age ≥ 70 years old, BMI < 30, and NYHA class II status.

The secondary outcome of total number of hospitalizations for HF was 407 with empagliflozin vs 541 with placebo (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88; P < .001). The rate of decline in the eGFR per year was –1.25 in the empagliflozin group vs –2.62 in the placebo group (P < .001), indicating that those taking empagliflozin had preserved renal function compared with those taking placebo.

Death from any cause occurred in 422 patients (14.1%) in the empagliflozin group and 427 patients (14.3%) in the placebo group (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15). Empagliflozin treatment was associated with higher rates of genital infections (2.2% vs 0.7%; P value not provided), urinary tract infections (9.9% vs 8.1%; P value not provided), and hypotension (10.4% vs 8.6%; P value not provided), compared to placebo.

WHAT’S NEW

Risk of hospitalization significantly reduced for patients with HFpEF

In the EMPEROR-Preserved study, empagliflozin led to a lower incidence of hospitalization for HF in patients with HFpEF but did not significantly reduce the number of deaths from CV disease or other causes. In comparison, in the similarly designed EMPEROR-Reduced trial, treatment with empagliflozin reduced CV and all-cause mortality in individuals with HFrEF.⁸

CAVEATS

HF criteria, study population may limit generalizability

The reduction in the primary outcome of CV death or first hospitalization was most pronounced in patients with an LVEF > 40% to < 50%, typically defined as HFmrEF, who often have clinical features similar to those with HFrEF. This raises the question of how generalizable these results are for all patients with HFpEF.

Continue to: The study's generalizability...

Empagliflozin treatment, however, was associated with higher rates of genital infections, urinary tract infections, and hypotension, compared to placebo.

The study’s generalizability was further limited by its significant exclusion criteria, which included elevated blood pressure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen, liver disease, renal disease with an eGFR < 20 mL/min/1.73 m² or requiring dialysis, and BMI ≥ 45.

Finally, only 12% of patients were from North America, and results were not significant for this subgroup (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00), which may challenge its external validity. The authors noted that 23% of patients discontinued treatment for reasons other than death, which may have driven the null effect.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Empagliflozin is expensive,but coverage may improve

Cost could be a major barrier to implementation. Retail pricing for empagliflozin is estimated to be more than $550 per month, which may be prohibitive for patients with no insurance or with higher-deductible plans.¹¹ However, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved empagliflozin to reduce the risk of CV death and hospitalization for HF in adults,¹² which may help to improve insurance coverage.